We have to recognize that terrorism may become the means of justifying military actions against other states. This is initially wrong approach, which will only fuel the existing conflicts between the nations. It seems that we are at the initial stage of a large campaign under the slogan "say no to terrorism". Thus, we risk not only refusing to fight terrorism, but we may also use the word "terrorism" as the password in foreign military operations. The world finds itself in the situation, when it has to follow the terrorist requirements with the fear of greater losses.
Our humility in the face of terrorism is justified by higher goals of saving people's lives. Don't you think that this is a very convenient situation when the world is turned into the single integral victim of terrorism? Surely, this position opens significant opportunities in international counterinsurgency operations. Terrorism is dangerous, and its danger is in its unexpectedness; yet it is no more dangerous than someone tries to depict it in certain conditions.
We cannot fight terrorism because we are either unable to integrate our efforts due to political disagreements, or we do not want to eliminate the terrorist threats which at times serve a good justification for the process of international "peacemaking". Thus, terrorism as a notion is viewed from a completely different perspective, and this perspective does not give us any hope for the future elimination of terrorism. The world of economics, calculations, and strategic thinking has accepted terrorism for granted.
The effective fight against terrorism has stopped when the world realized greater importance of economic resources. Terrorism is pushed to the political background, when the need to replenish limited economic resources becomes evident. Terrorism is dangerous in its roots, but it changes its appearance under the changing political conditions. If the political attitudes toward terrorism do not crucially change in the nearest decades, they will give rise to the new wave of terrorist acts, aimed at protecting economic resources and increasing the political strength of the "terrorist" states in the world political arena.
Reconstruction and stabilization of failing states There is persistent debate, why the United States is constantly involved into restoration and stabilization processes in the failing states. The implementation of such strategies is performed with the help of numerous agencies, which may distort its initial goals. However, stabilization of the failing states is the initiative of President Bush, and one of its goals is to combine public and private efforts, and to direct them at stabilizing democratic regimes in problematic areas of the world.
There are certain aspects to be considered when agencies work together for the implementation of Bush’s policies. The most crucial aspect is accountability. The issue of accountability among state agencies has for long been discussed. Moreover, there are significant gaps in the government agencies interactions. There was consistent misunderstanding as for the implications of such policies. In 2007 the U. S. Government finally implemented the Interagency Management System (IMS) to organize agencies, which deal with stabilization crisis (Herbst, 2007).
The principles of transformational policy are currently integrated with the interagency management requirements, to improve international collaboration in stabilization policies across numerous agencies (Herbst, 2007). If public effort is required to make the policy more efficient, the public should clearly realize the goals and the risks of such policies. Congressional funding and oversight significantly contribute into the failure of stabilization policies: the logic of such policies is not followed by all governmental agencies involved into the process of its implementation.
As soon as the policy is designed, and all its aspects are clarified, the logical structure of governmental agencies must be identified. These agencies will implement stabilization policies without distorting its goals. Simultaneously, it is essential that public is aware of the president’s policies and their political implications. Bush’s transformational diplomacy The term “transformational diplomacy” was frequently used by President Bush but was not yet clarified.
Transformational diplomacy presupposes cooperation with other political partners, and building sustainable democratic relations with them (Carpenter, 2006). The key aspect of transformational diplomacy is promoting partnership instead of paternalism (Carpenter, 2006). These aspects are especially important for the diplomatic relations between the U. S. and the Middle East. The U. S. – Middle East diplomatic relations experienced numerous failures and faced numerous challenges. As a result, transformation diplomacy is a positive perspective in the problematic relations between the two strategic partners.